uh... minumum wage is like 5.15/ hr, my turtles couldn't live on that.

Any company that cannot afford to pay its employees at least that, is doing something terribly wrong, and shouldn't be able to survive as a business anyway.

Not to mention people need to have money to spend money, I like how the same people that are for like no taxes ever because the consumer needs more money, are also for the consumer not being paid any money. I smell hypocrisy.

You liberals? I seem to remember everyone enjoying affordable housing. And the housing bubble didn't burst until well after Clinton's watch, like 6 years after, so I'm not sure what your point is... other than spewing your selective memory over the internet.

lol, listen, you have me banging my head against the wall now... I might as well be talking to the wall I think.

again, you took a snipet of what I said and are vainly trying to throw it back at me.

The only thing I can surmise from this new arguement of yours is that you accept my point as valid. Since my point was refuting a point of yours, I guess I win.

Now on to the arguement which I'm guessing you have now shifted to "there must be another way" which by the way was not your original point, but whatever, since you've so graceously accepted that I am right and you are wrong I will humor you.

No one is suggesting we "soak" the rich, infact getting wet has nothing to do with it. The only suggestion is returning to a previous tax code under which there was much more prosperity for rich and poor alike. Now if you have a better suggestion... I'm actually not interested because as I've said you bore me jafl, but I'm sure someone somewhere will listen, why not start a whole new debate?

First of all I would argue that slavery, infecting indians with small pox, and putting people with AIDS in concentration camps all had and would have much better options available from both an economic and humane standpoint, but that aside,

I hardly think any of those examples are a comparable to say returning to the the tax codes of the 90's, which would mean a 3% tax increase for those making over 250,000 a year.

Like if I were doing what you've been doing in your last couple replies I could take a point you said... The standard explanation for supply-siders is that cutting taxes for the rich will give the rich more money to invest in things like factories and stores which create jobs that help the economy in the long run.

And I would reply with something like:

Oh yeah! Well then like why not just give rich people all the money huh? I mean, that would make a bunch of jobs wouldn't it! (insert sarcasm)

That's basically what your arguement amounts to.

So you see why I said I'm bored with arguing with you and I don't want to do it anymore? I replied to you in another debate somewhere, find that one if you still want to argue with me, I'm done with this one.

I mean really? You're gonna compare my statement to Slavery?

Since when is it fair to tax someone just because they have more that can be taxed?

Where did I say anything about fair? I'm talking about what works.

People build factories as an investment in hopes of making a profit in the future. They don’t always wait for consumer demand to develop.

Then again, why didn't the Bush tax cut work?

You mean solution and your general level of ignorance is showing- or either you are foaming at the mouth to the point that you cannot talk.

Hm, now you're just getting boring. I've given you plenty of real world examples of why Reaganomics does not work, during the Reagan years, and the Bush years.

I assure you I'm not foaming at the mouth, and while I'm certainly not an expert in the subject, apparently I know much more about it than you do.

I see for example you quote me where I say that GDP is not the only indicator of national prosperity. Then you ask me what else is. Well, unemployment, mean income, standard of living to name a few. But that quote was part of a larger point, the point being China has the second highest GDP.

All of my points you refuse to answer, you simply take out a snipet, then ask me another question that would be easy enough for anyone to figure out. So I'm done debating this topic with you. Anyone who seriously thinks Reaganomics still works isn't really worth debating much anyway.

But if you do have another laundry list of lame points, you simply have to look at my above arguement, and I'm sure the come back is there somewhere since you at this point seem to be simply rehashing tired old arguements.

1. Reagan did an across the board tax cut, but it was a percentage across the board tax cut, so to say it was equal is incorrect. ie 3% of 1,000,000 is a good chunk of change, but 3% of 30,000 is like groceries for a week. So yeah, it was geared toward the rich. The middle class and lower economic classes did not see any significant benefit, nor did the economy due to their increased spending, little as it was.

2. Yes, building factories etc is the standard explanation. But that's not how it works. People build factories when and only when there is demand. Demand comes from the middle classes unless you're selling high-end stuff. The rich do not use a tax cut during a recession or depression to blindly start hiring people and building stuff. "Build it and they will come" only works if you're Kevin Costner and in a movie. So Reaganomics cannot work if one just puts a little thought into it, and if one does not bother to think, we can see clearly how it failed miserably when Bush used that template for his tax cuts.

I say that Republicans are trying to rewrite history, because that is precisely what they are doing. They are trying to say again that Reaganomics is somehow the solvent for our problems, when the real answer is the opposite of what they want, tighter regulations, investing in large State and National projects that employ large numbers of people, and a return to the tax codes of the 90s or something similar.

3. GDP is only one indicator of a nations prosperity. China has the second largest GDP after us, I don't think anyone would argue their citizens are well off by any stretch of the imagination.

During the Reagan years we still had a huge national defecit, Reagan "warned" that the national debt our country had accumulated in the 200 years of its existance was approaching 1 trillion... and when he left office in only 8 years it was 2.9 trillion, hm...

Clinton has been the only one in recent history to erase that defecit without a world war, and he did so with what would be almost the exact opposite of what Reagan did.

By Reagan's second year, unemployment reached 10.8%. That was the highest since the great depression, and higher than now. And Republicans blamed Carter for this... that's two years into his presidency, meanwhile they are already trying to shift blame to Obama for this depression.

Again, rewritting history.

On top of that, the Reagan administration used funny math to pad the poor scores.

Things like not counting unemployed people as unemployed after 6 mo. to make the numbers look better.

One of Bush Sr.'s admonishments of the Reagan era was no more funny math, Republicans ate it up,

but again, short memories and they love rewriting history. And of course that funny math remains in government even today.

And finally, are you kidding me? You're actually going to try to credit the House and Senate with anything as far as the economy is concerned during the 90s? The fact is, after fighting those Republicans tooth and nail on nearly every budget issue, it was Clinton who ended up getting his way in the end, at least part of what he wanted, on nearly everything.

Now you want to give the credit for the resulting benefits of those budget decisions to the very people who fought against them?

Jeez, I almost prefer arguing with the plain dumb Conservatives as opposed to the slick slightly informed ones.

Unless they don't spend the money because the majority of the tax cuts are given to the people who don't need to spend it, like what happened with the Bush tax cuts remember, and actually the Reagan ones as well because

1. Reaganomics didn't work no matter how hard you Conservatives keep trying to rewrite history.

2. the minimal "prosperity" you conservatives look back on through rosey glasses actually wasn't all that prosperous.

The longest and strongest stretch of economic expansion happened while Clinton was in office. And as a result of a combination of a bunch of things.

But if you were going to blame a president for an economy, which they do play a hand in, I think Clinton should be the one to emulate.

I mean, why did Conservatives try to distract everyone with the sex stuff? Because his policies worked so damn well that's all they had left.

Well, what's overlooked by a lot of people, the idea behind a representative democracy was that the poor people who make like 90% of our food would have little representation, that rural areas would often be overlooked.

However today, there really is no such thing as a "rural" area. Sure there's poor areas that don't have a lot of communications, but you can find them in the middle of a city just as easy as the hills of Virginia.

So that model I don't believe is relevant any longer.

I would also say that the Senate is currently unfairly biased toward rural America, as less populace = greater direct representation.

I guess that's not so much the point of this though.

I think that the time has definitely come though to do away with hanging chads, and adopt a system of direct representation using technology.

Ironically, if it weren't for the hanging chads, we may have it today :(

Seriously, you have to let this point go jake, the facts are stacked so heavily against even the idea of a multicultural State somehow not being able to survive that it boggles the mind.

Not to mention it's impossible anyway. Every nation, no matter how crappy, has always and will always have multiple cultures, you can embrace it, or become a raving looney like that old man.

Really think about it, name one place that only has one culture... there is none. Ruwanda, who the hell would even want to live there, and they have multiple cultures. Of course they take the road of blaming the minority cultures for their problems and you know, do some "ethnic cleansing" every now and then, yet still there are multiple cultures.

Not to say that this guy is suggesting ethnic cleansing (laughs nervously because any old guy who dresses like it's halloween and would put out a video like this privately might not be against it.)

Well, that guy is not the silent majority, he's the loud minority. And all of our leaders were voted in with a majority, this isn't Iran. And from my perspective it seems this guy is the one who is "uneducated and indoctrinated." Seriously, he sounds like a complete idiot.

And you should watch the "Color of Fear" whether you want to or not. It's a great documentary, and I think only like 40 minutes. It's probably not whatever you think it is anyway. And some Universities require it, so you might be giving yourself a head start.

lmao,

You should watch "the color of fear" this reminds me of the lady who "loves Indians, I collect their artifacts."

At any rate, there's a very good reason we don't want a national language. And the majority has stated very clearly who should be in power right now, and the majority won, so calm down with this revolution bullshit.

For his music eventually. The guy could sing. I liked the Jackson 5 stuff much better than the pop stuff though. Pop rarely survives, but I think a lot of the music from his younger days are pretty classical and can bridge the time gap.